Ben is right about that, and the intention is also that this forum should be used to discuss the pros and cons, so that people know what they are voting for at the AGM. If you have any comments or questions, don't hesitate to put them on here.

_________________Graham

I slept, and dreamt that life was Beauty,I woke, and found that life was Duty.

One of the things mentioned is that the league should choose the option that loses least members; I may have paraphrased.

Either choice may run the risk of losing somebody so perhaps there may be another way.

Is it possible to have, say three divisions for players who are registered with the ECF with all the games are graded? Presumably this will have most of the very strong congress players, internationals and the strong juniors. Could we then also have one or two divisions for players who do not wish to join the ECF but just want to play league chess? These games would not be submitted for ECF grading and players would not be members of the ECF.

Players from the ECF division could play in the non-aligned sub-league, if they so wished, but not the other way round. A large club, for example Downend or Clifton, could run say three ECF teams and two non-aligned teams. Smaller clubs could decide which one they wanted to join - or maybe one in each as the divisions would be autonomous. The non-aligned could have their own Bristol grading if they wish and that could be based on the ELO or ECF format. If it was ELO I would not mind running it web-based on a real time basis.

Perhaps there are problems I have not thought of yet, but it seems to me that we do not lose any players with this format. Also the whole thing means every game is still played in the same Bristol league albeit two tournaments.

Paul, the problem with running two separate leagues is that the league may eventually become divided - also you talk about the big clubs being able to divide between the two (which they have the resources to do so) but there are a number of clubs with only 1 or 2 teams and they are at risk of folding in this situation... for example let's say we have a club called the M32 Gambits who only have one team in the League and 7 members - 4 accept membership and 3 don't - this team could not divide itself between 2 leagues (and this would make fixtures and clashes a real nightmare). As a result, players who take up ECF will want to play in a graded competition as they don't want to pay for a membership they won't use and will go and join another club - with the result that the "M32 Gambits" club folds due to lack of players. End result is that we may actually end up losing some clubs from the league as a result and reducing the competition and less options for people who want to play at a club near to their home.

I stress this is only a hypothetical situation but it could become a real fear for some of the clubs in our league.

_________________The best things in life begin with C.Cricket, chocolate, chess, c-pawn openings.

"the problem with running two separate leagues is that the league may eventually become divided"

Agreed, and that is not what anyone wants. There would have to be a big effort by everyone to ensure that does not happen.

"but there are a number of clubs with only 1 or 2 teams and they are at risk of folding in this situation... for example let's say we have a club called the M32 Gambits who only have one team in the League and 7 members - 4 accept membership and 3 don't - this team could not divide itself between 2 leagues (and this would make fixtures and clashes a real nightmare). As a result, players who take up ECF will want to play in a graded competition as they don't want to pay for a membership they won't use and will go and join another club - with the result that the "M32 Gambits" club folds due to lack of players."

I am a member of a team in pretty much this position. We have a team in div 1 and one div 4. However, if we take the exact scenario and let us say it is real. We go with universal ECF membership and the three who don't like the new rules drop out then the club folds anyway. If we withdraw from the ECF rules and the four who want membership are annoyed and drop out, then the club folds. It seems the club may fold whatever we may do. My suggestion was a compromise to try and keep everyone happy, perhaps a foolish effort.

"and this would make fixtures and clashes a real nightmare"

This is a real problem I accept. It may be in reality that players who play in the ECF division may not want to play in the non-ECF division anyway so clashes are not important. Remember players cannot go the other way if they are not ECF registered. It could be that the non-ECF division could be four boards to make life easier.

"End result is that we may actually end up losing some clubs from the league as a result and reducing the competition and less options for people who want to play at a club near to their home."

Perhaps but that could happen anyway if enough players are not happy with whatever the league ends up doing, one way or the other.

I think Paul's is a good idea. It could fall naturally that Div 4 becomes non rated and Div 5 also if it returns. Steve's issues might materialise but probably wont prevent the idea working. This approach would justify lower league entry fees for non ECF teams and lower club fees for those who dont want to play ECF chess.

To make it work a local ELO style rating, managed by Paul is needed. This should be extended to cover all Bristol chess including the ECF divisions and the Bristol Congresses as it would make the Bristol grades more realistic and would not increase work/costs by much.

If players in the non ECF divisions want to play in the ECF divisions also, they could register as members which would put them in the same financial position as accepting the ECF scheme.

GMW would need to consider how the proposal might affect the Bristol Congresses as non registered players would not be able to play except by paying an extra £6 or joining the ECF. It might be that a non rated section is needed or players become ECF members if they want to take part in the congresses.

For background I am Welsh with a Welsh Fide code and play for Wales and two chess roles go on in my house, I am treasurer of Thornbury chess club and Chris wrote a program that calculated the fixtures this year...not showing off just coming at this from a variety of angles.

To answer Paul's point that if there is a split league clashes won't matter; they still will. All clubs state how many teams they can have playing at home at once (generally about 50%) and this is one of the criteria coded into the fixtures program.

The trouble with a fourth division of non-rated chess is that is often where juniors first see adult chess and they are the keenest to follow their rating.

From the treasurer point of view (not speaking for any other clubs of course) but the way Thornbury do it is we have an advance bill from the League Treasurer which details the league (and league knock out if applicable) game fees and this is split between themembers and the fees are calculated taking into account current balance, this and room fees. We then have an arbitrary half-price for the couple of people who do not play in the league. We find this simple but it does not mean that if you play less league chess you pay less fees, other clubs may of course charge per match. For us the costs would be the same...£12 membership to the ECF or about £12 game fees to the ECF.

Now onto the more fluffy stuff...I.personally don't see joining the ECF as an affront to my Welshness, I am a member of the Welsh Chess Union to pay for my chess in Wales, I choose to live in England so I pay the ECF for the facility of playing chess in England.OK I pay the WCU £5 and will pay the ECF about £20 but it is all in the noise, a couple of away matches cost more in petrol than a year's subscription. (In brackets as I am not sure of this, the ECF have lost much of their funding but I think the WCU still get Welsh Assembly help).

In summary, I am certainly not saying that I think the ECF are great! and I do think this scheme is flawed mainly because of the extra work for Treasurers and Organisers. Maybe they should have marketed it better 'Yearly game fee' and there would have been no objection . But at the end of the day it is likely to happen, most players will notice little difference and I really hope Bristol Chess stays the friendly, well organised game that it is.

(a) payment by Bronze, Silver and Gold Full and Concessionary Members direct to ECF via the ECF website of £1 per membership(b) payment by a Member Organisation that has entered into a Framework Agreement under the Direct Member Bye Laws by 31st October in the year in question of £1 per membership

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum